It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smog. Carbon Pollution and Global Warming. A Few Observations and Questions.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Carbon is different from carbon-di-oxide, carbon is the naturally occuring element and does not cause global warming. CO2 on the other hand is relased as a product of respiration from all the living organisms on the earth.

And here's my evidence the ozone hole over the antarctic caused due to the presence of CFC's.



[edit on 9/12/08 by peacejet]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
Excuse me for the mistake, I do accept that water vapour causes global warming, but read this for the article,

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).


Human activities, does not change the concentration of the vapour and it is natural. That was the one that kept the earth from freezing in the past, causing an even heating of the earth, but this CO2 by humans merely accelerates the normal heating of the earth. hope you get the point that I am trying to convey.


Which again is irrelevant. There are plenty of natural occuring GHG's. That is pretty much my point when I say that man is insignificant. The concentration of man-mad GHG's in our atmosphere are less than 1% of the total GHG's. Man could drive itself back to the stone age (actually it would have to be BEFORE the stone age, before we learned to manipulate fire), and the total GHG's in our atmosphere would decrease (eventually) by somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (and I'm being generous here). Furthermore, there is currently no heating of the Earth. It has been demonstrated that the Earth has cooled every year since 1999, despite drastic increases in man-made carbon dioxide output.
www.dailytech.com...
www.junkscience.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 





For your information, water vapour is not a green house gas, it is a natural component and not man made.


For YOUR information, here is the definition of a green house gas:



Greenhouse Gas
Any gas that absorbs infra-red radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).


source: www.natsource.com...

Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas, but it is the PRIMARY component, while CO2 only has a concentration of about 390 parts per million by volume of our atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Thats what I admitted my ignorance in a previous post, we are here to deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Carbon is different from carbon-di-oxide, carbon is the naturally occuring element and does not cause global warming. CO2 on the other hand is relased as a product of respiration from all the living organisms on the earth.

And here's my evidence the ozone hole over the antarctic caused due to the presence of CFC's.



[edit on 9/12/08 by peacejet]



It's kind of amusing that you accuse the invented global warming crisis on respiration of man and animals, then "prove" it by showing images of the two poles having drastic ozone deficiencies which are caused by what? Breathing? Just how many people and animals are at the poles causing this crisis? Maybe we should move them to the equator?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 


I wanted to mention to the OP that CO2 is formed in nature like that, I didnt say that it caused global warming. He wanted evidence for my stating that the greenhouse gases were transported to the polar regions and that is the evidence. Those two are seperate and not to confused.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by bronco73
 


I wanted to mention to the OP that CO2 is formed in nature like that, I didnt say that it caused global warming. He wanted evidence for my stating that the greenhouse gases were transported to the polar regions and that is the evidence. Those two are seperate and not to confused.


Perfect. Now, that brings us right back to the REAL question. What exactly DOES cause global mean temperatures to rise (I'm going to humor you here since I've already established that they are NOT, in fact they are falling)? We have established that respiration cannot cause temperature rise, especially since we haven't even delved into the fact that all of the Earth's flora consume that carbon dioxide. Nice little circle that is. Now, we need to ask ourselves how exactly do these GHG's arrive at the polar regions to cause your Ozone hole? It would appear that you earlier claimed that global winds are the transport vehicle, but I cannot agree with you there either since most of the wind patterns on Earth are easterlies or westerlies.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 


What would you say about the north atlantic drift current which goes from florida to canada and to the proximity of UK and further into the arctic.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 





Thats what I admitted my ignorance in a previous post, we are here to deny ignorance.


True. My post and your admission crossed. I was in the process of getting the references, pasting them into my response, and checking them, when you posted the admission, so at the time of my response, I didn't see that. Sorry for any confusion.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by bronco73
 


What would you say about the north atlantic drift current which goes from florida to canada and to the proximity of UK and further into the arctic.


I would say that using the north Atlantic drift current as evidence for warming at the poles completely goes against your argument that man is causing warming of the globe (which has already been demonstrated to currently not exist). Furthermore, if anything I'd say that the oceans currents are a climate stabilizer.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Great discussion thread! I've was also initially skeptical of the claims that global warming was anthropogenic in nature (caused by man's activities), but after a lot of research, I convinced myself that it is almost certainly the case. This is a complex topic and so I can't lay out all the evidence here, but the things that tipped my scales were the main Wikipedia entry on global warming: en.wikipedia.org... more specifically, the cited references which are highly reputable, and a chapter out of Thomas Friedman's book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded".

Here is the short of it: CO2 and methane produced by human activities are almost certainly the dominant factor in the observed rise in temperatures since the early 1900's (the dawn of the industrial revolution). There is zero contention at this point in the scientific community that the Earth has heated up (by about 1.33 degrees F globally) and continues to do so. This may not sound like a lot, but there is general agreement that a global change of more than 3 degrees would end civilization as we know it. Furthermore, there is only a very small minority of scientists who are still debating whether that temperature rise is attributable to man, and most of those are not the scientists who are actually studying global warming--they are scientists in other fields. The vast majority of scientists have accepted that man's activites are a huge factor (see the Wikipedia article, and if you don't believe that, follow its references).

The most intuitive evidence is this: While there HAS been natural variation in temperature in the past, say due to solar variation, a change of 1 degree (like the change we've seen this century), has previously taken _thousands_ of years to happen. Never before has the temperature changed by so much SO QUICKLY. (Read "Hot Flat and Crowded" for more info on this.)

Yes, PERHAPS it is just a coincidence that the industrial revolution HAPPENED to overlap with an unprecedented surge in global temperature occurring ten times faster than any other in geologic history.

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

How about your childrens' lives?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I don't think anyone is particularly concerned with smog vis a vis global warming; though it's related to greenhouse gas emissions, the main concern with smog is air quality. People have to breathe that stuff. But while the particulate matter and dense gasses in smog stay at lower elevations, CO2, nitrous oxides, methane, water vapor, etc don't.

The actual smog haze is more a problem for people's respiratory tract. San Diego, for example, has no problem with smog, and has clear blue skies all year round, but nobody claims it's million plus cars aren't polluting. It's just in a geographically more fortuitous location than cities like LA and Vegas with regards to the buildup of smog.

If you think it's bad now, though, you should have seen it in the 70s and 80s.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join